Poll Shows Majority of Americans Believe Abortion ?Almost Always Bad? for Women

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So the basis of who should live and who should die in this country is based on economics?

Since when hasn't it been?

Do you believe that if a person is an economic burden on society or is "troublesome" to take care of, they should be killed?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So the basis of who should live and who should die in this country is based on economics?

Since when hasn't it been?

Do you believe that if a person is an economic burden on society or is "troublesome" to take care of, they should be killed?

Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So the basis of who should live and who should die in this country is based on economics?

Since when hasn't it been?

Do you believe that if a person is an economic burden on society or is "troublesome" to take care of, they should be killed?

Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

What about people who have alzheimer's disease? Should they be killed too?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Private programs are not going to provide the type of ongoing assistance he's likely to need as an adult. New government programs don't need to be created, the existing ones simply need adequate funding to do fufill their mandates.

Knowing at age 22 what sorts of help the disabled young adult will receive on an ongoing basis makes it easier for the family to plan/structure their own contribution to the mix.

There are many advantages to supervised living/group home placement for kids like my son at age 22, it often helps them become far more independent in their daily living skills and able to do more.It also gives the casemanagement time and the family a real idea as to how far the young adult will go in terms of his ability to live on his own before the parents die... that's important info in terms of the family's estate planning.


Had my son received more supports early on, he might well need less in terms of services and caregiving down the road.If we as a society don't pay for the developmentally disabled as children will can be assured we will pay far more for them as adults because their functioning level will be lower.

We as a society are increasingly unwilling to provide supports to our nation's disabled children now, I cannot fathom what would happen if Roe is overturned and we are faced with the prospect of thounds more being born every year, to say nothing of our foster care system which is already in crisis,unable to meet the needs of abused/neglected children

So you're saying the abortion of such children is desirable or even necessary? Is your son's life worth living, in your opinion?

Is his life worth living ? Good question, I wouldn't be happy if I were him, I'm willing to bet that he'll be even less happy once I'm dead and gone and there's no one with any sort of vested interest in looking out for his welfare.

There are tens of thousands of unplacable children laquishing in foster homes now.Most prospective adoptive couples don't want older kids, babies born defective or addicted to drugs, even now with the shortage of infants available for adoption. What makes you think this situation will ease if Roe is overturned ? What do you propose we do with the bumper crop of newly born unadoptables that will be born? and there will be scads of them as adoptive couples want healthy white infants,not damaged,drug addicted babies.

We don't want to pay for these kids now, what will we do if there are 100x more of them?

His siblings aren't going to look out for him?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So the basis of who should live and who should die in this country is based on economics?

Since when hasn't it been?

Do you believe that if a person is an economic burden on society or is "troublesome" to take care of, they should be killed?

Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

What about people who have alzheimer's disease? Should they be killed too?

No they shouldn't, but this was about unborn fetuses. Why are you talking about old people?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So the basis of who should live and who should die in this country is based on economics?

Since when hasn't it been?

Do you believe that if a person is an economic burden on society or is "troublesome" to take care of, they should be killed?

Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

What about people who have alzheimer's disease? Should they be killed too?

:roll:I'm debating a true Moron!

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So the basis of who should live and who should die in this country is based on economics?

Since when hasn't it been?

Do you believe that if a person is an economic burden on society or is "troublesome" to take care of, they should be killed?

Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

What about people who have alzheimer's disease? Should they be killed too?

:roll:I'm debating a true Moron!

Dealing with an alzheimer's victim is hard on a family and their quality of life isn't any good, so why not kill them?

How is that any different that killing a handicapped baby?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

I'm pretty sure we've covered this at least five times in this thread. There can be no question that the fetus is, indeed, a living human being. The question is whether or not it is a person - whether it has rights. You are essentially arguing that something with low quality of life should not be ascribed rights. So, then, what is your lower limit for quality of life that must be satisfied to ascribe the fetus rights?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

I'm pretty sure we've covered this at least five times in this thread. There can be no question that the fetus is, indeed, a living human being. The question is whether or not it is a person - whether it has rights. You are essentially arguing that something with low quality of life should not be ascribed rights. So, then, what is your lower limit for quality of life that must be satisfied to ascribe the fetus rights?

Isn't the question as to whether the fetus is a living human being kind of the focal point of the whole pro-choice vs pro-life arugment? If what you say is fact I believe there would be no debate so either...

1. it is not a fact at all
or
2. it is a fact that hasn't been proven yet
or
3. it can't really be proven either way and is a matter of perspective

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
Isn't the question as to whether the fetus is a living human being kind of the focal point of the whole pro-choice vs pro-life arugment? If what you say is fact I believe there would be no debate so either...

1. it is not a fact at all
or
2. it is a fact that hasn't been proven yet
or
3. it can't really be proven either way and is a matter of perspective

No, as I've stated time and again, the debate is whether or not we should ascribe rights to a fetus based solely on its humanity. Essentially, is humanity sufficient cause for the granting of rights?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
Isn't the question as to whether the fetus is a living human being kind of the focal point of the whole pro-choice vs pro-life arugment? If what you say is fact I believe there would be no debate so either...

1. it is not a fact at all
or
2. it is a fact that hasn't been proven yet
or
3. it can't really be proven either way and is a matter of perspective

No, as I've stated time and again, the debate is whether or not we should ascribe rights to a fetus based solely on its humanity. Essentially, is humanity sufficient cause for the granting of rights?

Well I think you assume too much - if not everyone can agree or be convinced that a fetus has "humanity" any argument you make based on that doesn't really hold. I'm torn as to whether a fetus has "humanity" but I feel fairly confident that in earlier stages the collection of cells does not. Mind you I can't prove this - it's a matter of opinion based on some facts.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
Isn't the question as to whether the fetus is a living human being kind of the focal point of the whole pro-choice vs pro-life arugment? If what you say is fact I believe there would be no debate so either...

1. it is not a fact at all
or
2. it is a fact that hasn't been proven yet
or
3. it can't really be proven either way and is a matter of perspective

No, as I've stated time and again, the debate is whether or not we should ascribe rights to a fetus based solely on its humanity. Essentially, is humanity sufficient cause for the granting of rights?

that depends...is this the fetus of an american or a terrorist?

 

[rususa]

You guys seem to be doing rather well by yourselves, so I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents in (and maybe a few replies )

First of all, my position is that, in theory. abortion is always morally wrong. Basically, I believe it is wrong to deliberately end the life of a human being, and that a fetus is a human being. Conclusion logically follows. Just to add in my responses to what appears to be the most common objections:

1) Don't even bother comparing a fetus to an appendix, or tumor, or whatever other body part. One is clearly a seperate organism: not an "extension" of the mother. Besides, when does the "extension" suddenly gain a seperate right to exist?

2) For those who claim a fetus only has the "potential" to be human, don't kid yourself. A fetus is going to do one of two things naturally. There will either be a miscarriage, and the fetus will accidently die, or it will be born. It will never suddenly stop developing and fail to become a human or something like that. So, in summary, barring accidents and abortions, 100% of fetuses become "persons".

3) To those who do think the fetus is human, yet it is permissible to kill it anyway, I hope you don't remain a threat to society for long.

I believe that the reason behind the majority of abortions (and many problems in our society) is the fact that sex has become such a dirt cheap thing, something anyone, anywhere can and does do. The reason for this is because our society apparantly refuses to believe in consequences. And I don't blame it when all we get is that we are advanced animals with no other purposes than to screw each other and propagate our genes, until we die and disappear forever. We can ignore this assertion to very high degrees, but the fact remains that unless you're serious about religion and have a different answer, this is the philosophy you're living by. A philosophy that teaches humans have no inherent value at all. This is the real reason abortion is so wide-spread. There might be less if we had some respect for ourselves.

I apologize if this sounds confusing. I'm very frustrated because I can't express everything I want to say in a nice and condensed post. But if anybody wants clarification, or just plain wants to argue, I'll be around.

 

[Riprorin]

Your post doesn't sound confusing at all. Well said!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
Well I think you assume too much - if not everyone can agree or be convinced that a fetus has "humanity" any argument you make based on that doesn't really hold. I'm torn as to whether a fetus has "humanity" but I feel fairly confident that in earlier stages the collection of cells does not. Mind you I can't prove this - it's a matter of opinion based on some facts.

I assume nothing other than what the Supreme Court clearly stated in Roe v. Wade. So, clearly, that is not the issue at hand.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So the basis of who should live and who should die in this country is based on economics?

Since when hasn't it been?

Do you believe that if a person is an economic burden on society or is "troublesome" to take care of, they should be killed?

Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

What about people who have alzheimer's disease? Should they be killed too?

:roll:I'm debating a true Moron!

Dealing with an alzheimer's victim is hard on a family and their quality of life isn't any good, so why not kill them?

How is that any different that killing a handicapped baby?

Because that's not the subject being debated in this thread.

You keep straying away from my question so I will ask it again, I've placed my question into quotes so that perhaps you'll see it this time.


"There are tens of thousands of unplacable children laquishing in foster homes now.Most prospective adoptive couples don't want older kids, babies born defective or addicted to drugs, even now with the shortage of infants available for adoption. What makes you think this situation will ease if Roe is overturned ? What do you propose we do with the bumper crop of newly born unadoptables that will be born? and there will be scads of them as adoptive couples want healthy white infants,not damaged,drug addicted babies.

We don't want to pay for these kids now, what will we do if there are 100x more of them?"

 

[Riprorin]

If we can raise billions of dollars to aid disaster victims in SE Asia, surely we can raise money to help unfortunate children in our own country.

I don't agree with your premise that if children don't get some arbitrary level of care they should be killed.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: tss4
This arguement is somewhat reasaonable for the 16 year old child, but what about the 27 year old that hasn't married yet. How about the person that never planned on having children ever. Are they to never have sex in their lives?

People can have as much sex as they like, but only if they are willing to accept all possible outcomes of their actions.

One of the possible outcomes of their actions is abortion. Those receiving the abortion are apparently perfectly willing to accept this consequence of their actions; you apparently are not. Why is that?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Is his life worth living ? Good question, I wouldn't be happy if I were him, I'm willing to bet that he'll be even less happy once I'm dead and gone and there's no one with any sort of vested interest in looking out for his welfare.

There are tens of thousands of unplacable children laquishing in foster homes now.Most prospective adoptive couples don't want older kids, babies born defective or addicted to drugs, even now with the shortage of infants available for adoption. What makes you think this situation will ease if Roe is overturned ? What do you propose we do with the bumper crop of newly born unadoptables that will be born? and there will be scads of them as adoptive couples want healthy white infants,not damaged,drug addicted babies.

We don't want to pay for these kids now, what will we do if there are 100x more of them?

Having worked with retarded children and seen their families broken by the hardships imposed, I'm well aware of the difficulties that arise just from their existence. However, I cannot say that they would be better off dead. It's hardly an act of mercy to kill someone before he can ever live at all. I know many handicapped people that lead very fulfilling lives. Frankly, I'm appalled that you would suggest we're better off allowing people to kill someone because they may be handicapped upon birth simply because their lives will be difficult.

Frankly, I'm appalled at your continued dishonest use of language. The term 'someone' implies the existence of a person. Prove that the zygote or fetus is a 'someone', as opposed to a 'something'. (The default assumption, of course, is that the zygote or fetus is not a person or human, at all).

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Frankly, I'm appalled that you would suggest we're better off allowing people to kill someone because they may be handicapped upon birth simply because their lives will be difficult.

Well luckily for Mathew he has a Mother that was emotionally equiped to deal with his handicap. Unfortunately not all Handicapped Children are as lucky. Many of them end up being wherehoused in institutes. I find the latter more appalling!

Surely you don't expect tax payers to foot the bill to give those handicapped children a decent quality of life?!? Those children MUST be made to pay for the choices made by the parents. That is what personal responsibility is all about, right? Besides, it's MY money - how dare you expect me to contribute to the things that make our society civilised! I DEMAND and TAKE ADVANTAGE OF all of the benefits that come with being part of a more or less civilised, social democratic state (or republic) - but don't you DARE expect me to pay for any of it!

 

[Riprorin]

You need to study genetics and embryology:

The fertilized egg or zygote contains all of the genetic material needed to create the fully expressed individual and includes inherent complex encoding for individual human interjection and all the other associated qualities characteristic of human personhood.

We can take a single cell or zygote from a human being, a gorilla and a mouse and subject them to forensic testing and definitively identify each species. Moreover, if one or two cells were removed from a developing human embryo and either typed as to their individual specific DNA pattern or stored away, they could be used many years later to identify the adult individual.

Link

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Frankly, I'm appalled that you would suggest we're better off allowing people to kill someone because they may be handicapped upon birth simply because their lives will be difficult.

Well luckily for Mathew he has a Mother that was emotionally equiped to deal with his handicap. Unfortunately not all Handicapped Children are as lucky. Many of them end up being wherehoused in institutes. I find the latter more appalling!

Hitler agreed with you. Just kill them all! What a perfect solution to man's imperfections.

Ah yes, the "compare them to the Nazis" approach. Wow. You're stooping to even lower levels of slimy, sleazy behavior in debate, aren't you?

The Nazis killed people. It has not been established that a zygote or fetus is a person. Abortion cannot reasonably be compared to the Nazi murder of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and mentally or intellectually retarded individuals.

 

[Riprorin]

It has been established by science that a zygote is a human being. You don't want to aknowlege it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So the basis of who should live and who should die in this country is based on economics?

Since when hasn't it been?

Do you believe that if a person is an economic burden on society or is "troublesome" to take care of, they should be killed?

Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

What about people who have alzheimer's disease? Should they be killed too?

No they shouldn't, but this was about unborn fetuses. Why are you talking about old people?

It's a red herring (spurious analogy).

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Nope but then I don't consider a fetus to be a living Human being. If the Parents or woman cannot deal with raisng a serverly retarded child, especially oine that has no chance of any type of quality life then they should be able to terminate the pregnancy if they should choose too!

I'm pretty sure we've covered this at least five times in this thread. There can be no question that the fetus is, indeed, a living human being.

Incorrect. A fetus is not a human being or person.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The question is whether or not it is a person - whether it has rights. You are essentially arguing that something with low quality of life should not be ascribed rights. So, then, what is your lower limit for quality of life that must be satisfied to ascribe the fetus rights?

In plain English,
a human being = a person, more or less.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
Well I think you assume too much - if not everyone can agree or be convinced that a fetus has "humanity" any argument you make based on that doesn't really hold. I'm torn as to whether a fetus has "humanity" but I feel fairly confident that in earlier stages the collection of cells does not. Mind you I can't prove this - it's a matter of opinion based on some facts.

I assume nothing other than what the Supreme Court clearly stated in Roe v. Wade. So, clearly, that is not the issue at hand.

Well, yes, it is an issue. We are discussing general philosophical and moral arguments, more so than a specific legal ruling.